john9blue wrote:the day of! what a fast smear campaign. or did you prepare one of these for each potential vice-presidential pick?

Can I ask what makes this a "smear campaign"? If the claims are true, it's not a smear: it's information. Many of the claims are particularly relevant given that they pertain to the fabled Ryan Plan, which seems likely to become the crux of the Romney campaign from here on out.

since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

john9blue wrote:since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

john9blue wrote:since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation. juan posted information about ryan that he personally finds disagreeable, and thought that it would convince people to vote against ryan. what he didn't realize is that much of what he posted is accepted by many people and is why they ARE voting for ryan. he forgot to post WHY ryan's views are bad for the economy, instead tossing down a bunch of links, many of which lead to blatantly biased websites.

mostly i'm bemused by the speed of his campaign and exasperated by his constant praise of things like obamacare for purely selfish reasons.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

Neato Missile wrote:Suggesting that the Obama campaign should "stop alleging Romney is a felon" implies that the allegation occurred more than once, which I don't believe is the case. The cancer death ad is also markedly different from how it's represented here: Romney's favored form of predatory capitalism is what is linked to the woman's death, not the candidate himself.

Actually, it has occurred more than once. In fact, it's been the only thing coming from the campaign and surrogates for the past 2 weeks. From Harry Reid making up the claim to the campaign itself now running ads alleging the action.

Where is "predatory capitalism" ever even alluded to in the cancer ad? The guy is blaming Romney for firing him and killing his wife. The accusations are quite simple but the truth is far from what is shown in the ad.

john9blue wrote: what he didn't realize is that much of what he posted is accepted by many people and is why they ARE voting for ryan.

That's actually what I was thinking as I read the post. Same kind of thing is happening in the US Senate race in Missouri.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm sorry to rain on your bigotry party, but what does Atheism have to do with Paul Ryan's budget or whatever?

I also find it odd that automatons like you always want to call us liberals socialist (like the Nazi kind) and talk about wealth redistribution and envy and shit... like giving the top 1% of American's 84% of the country's money was somehow an intelligent idea for the Conservative party. It's actually fucking retarded and has destroyed the world economy. In the 50's and 60's when the wealth was spread around by a top tax rate of 70-92%, our economy was the healthiest it ever was and the average income was much higher than today, even when adjusted for inflation.

And you're right, there is no discussing any topics with us when you have a dissenting viewpoint. That's because we know what we are talking about and you don't know anything until we teach it to you.Cheers.

Assume a person that earns 10,000 pays 0% in taxes since we know many people do not pay any taxes. So their after-tax income would be $10,000. If we are reducing that 2.0%; that would bring their after-tax income to $9,800 dollars; or $200 difference per year. That breaks down to less that $17/month, which could also be broken down to $0.56 cents per day. Again, remember this individual would be the HARDEST hit by the plan.

And actually if you make less than $9,350, you do not have to submit your tax information so this truly only impacts those individuals who make between 9350 & 10000. Can you provide me what percentage of the population that is and also let me know if they are not receiving more than $17/month in any type of government assistance programs which could be considered neutralized by this plan.

Sometimes politicians, pawns, and journalists exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact.

But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1.The sixth would pay $3.The seventh would pay $7.The eighth would pay $12.The ninth would pay $18.The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men Began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

john9blue wrote:a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation. juan posted information about ryan that he personally finds disagreeable, and thought that it would convince people to vote against ryan. what he didn't realize is that much of what he posted is accepted by many people and is why they ARE voting for ryan. he forgot to post WHY ryan's views are bad for the economy, instead tossing down a bunch of links, many of which lead to blatantly biased websites.

mostly i'm bemused by the speed of his campaign and exasperated by his constant praise of things like obamacare for purely selfish reasons.

It seems there's a history between Juan and this forum I wasn't aware of.

For what it's worth, I agree wholly with his stance on Ryan. Whether or not Obama's slo-mo recovery is the best we could have hoped for, Ryan's signature budget seems to have the most punishing effects on the already-punished middle class. His ideas about entitlement reform may spur a much-needed debate about the future of our social programs, but in my opinion his plans call for actions that are far more abrupt and dramatic than is necessary or wise.

If you are exasperated by Juan's "purely selfish" praise for progressive programs that benefit him, can you also see why we are exasperated by Romney and Ryan's praise of things like the Ryan Budget, which they benefit from most of all?

Night Strike wrote:Actually, it has occurred more than once. In fact, it's been the only thing coming from the campaign and surrogates for the past 2 weeks. From Harry Reid making up the claim to the campaign itself now running ads alleging the action.

I don't think it's fair to conflate one staffer's remarks with the entire campaign. Her "felon" accusation was out of line and I would greatly respect a statement from Obama putting it right, but excluding her remarks the motivation behind seeking the tax returns is seemingly to prove that Romney pays an unusually low tax rate. The Democrats really want to prove that the wealthy pay a smaller share of their larger amounts of money than the vast majority of Americans this election, and Mitt Romney's tax returns are a means to that end. It is perfectly justifiable to seek a candidate's economic information when said candidate is running on a largely economic platform.

Night Strike wrote:Where is "predatory capitalism" ever even alluded to in the cancer ad? The guy is blaming Romney for firing him and killing his wife. The accusations are quite simple but the truth is far from what is shown in the ad.

"Predatory capitalism" is not mentioned in the ad, it's a term I cribbed from elsewhere regarding Romney's perceived corporate strategy of buying companies, "eating" them, and moving on. It wasn't meant insultingly, though I see that it's a somewhat loaded term.

That said, at no point in the ad does Soptic blame Romney for killing his wife. The point of the whole ad is that when Bain Capital closed down factories, real people suffered. It's more affecting than reams of statistics or graphs representing thousands of fired humans, and it should in no way be interpreted as an accusation of personal wrongdoing on Romney's part.

john9blue wrote:a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation. juan posted information about ryan that he personally finds disagreeable, and thought that it would convince people to vote against ryan. what he didn't realize is that much of what he posted is accepted by many people and is why they ARE voting for ryan. he forgot to post WHY ryan's views are bad for the economy, instead tossing down a bunch of links, many of which lead to blatantly biased websites.

mostly i'm bemused by the speed of his campaign and exasperated by his constant praise of things like obamacare for purely selfish reasons.

It seems there's a history between Juan and this forum I wasn't aware of.

For what it's worth, I agree wholly with his stance on Ryan.

Apparently, you're easily convinced.

It seems that posted out-of-context quotes, and then supplying a list of ambiguous sources, which fail to show which allegations they support, is enough for you.

I have no idea if what Juan posted was a fair reflection on the views of Paul Ryan ,consequently I would welcome some relevent input . Can we move in that direction rather than just spewing bi partisan bullshit ?

john9blue wrote:since when does a smear campaign have to consist entirely of lies and half-truths? go research what a smear campaign is. i'm not a fan of everything ryan does, but you won't see me actively campaigning against him because i'm not deluding myself into thinking that obama is any better.

Good point, a true statement can be a smear. I misspoke. Still, if Ryan is running on his economic acumen-- which certainly seems to be the case-- why wouldn't information about his budget be fair game? If it damages his reputation to shine a light on the very thing he's built said reputation around, isn't that Ryan's error more than Juan's?

a smear campaign is any campaign with the intention of ruining someone's reputation.

By this logic, it is impossible for someone to present the facts of a situation, because there will always be someone who will claim it is that presenter's intention to ruin the reputation of the individual. And even if that is the intention, those facts are still facts. Further, sometimes people need to be made aware that the existing reputation someone has is ill-founded. It seems odd to me that you would claim that a presentation of facts constitutes a smear campaign. Well, it doesn't seem odd to me that YOU would, I suppose, given that it was regarding a Republican candidate.

Last edited by Woodruff on Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

Neato Missile wrote:It seems there's a history between Juan and this forum I wasn't aware of.

Much to my chagrin, Juan_Bottom has recently taken to posting articles, pictures and videos and not adding much to them as a manner of pointing out the stupidity of the methods of those other individuals in this forum who have historically (and continued to) done the same. He can be a much better, much more thought-provoking poster, but he is allowing himself to devolve into this as a means of making a statement.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

john9blue wrote: what he didn't realize is that much of what he posted is accepted by many people and is why they ARE voting for ryan.

That's actually what I was thinking as I read the post. Same kind of thing is happening in the US Senate race in Missouri.

So then why is it a problem? That's how a "presentation of facts" works.

None of my posts in this thread have been challenging anything presented in the first post of the thread.

Neato Missile wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Actually, it has occurred more than once. In fact, it's been the only thing coming from the campaign and surrogates for the past 2 weeks. From Harry Reid making up the claim to the campaign itself now running ads alleging the action.

I don't think it's fair to conflate one staffer's remarks with the entire campaign. Her "felon" accusation was out of line and I would greatly respect a statement from Obama putting it right, but excluding her remarks the motivation behind seeking the tax returns is seemingly to prove that Romney pays an unusually low tax rate. The Democrats really want to prove that the wealthy pay a smaller share of their larger amounts of money than the vast majority of Americans this election, and Mitt Romney's tax returns are a means to that end. It is perfectly justifiable to seek a candidate's economic information when said candidate is running on a largely economic platform.

The whole point of wanting to see all of Romney's tax returns is so they can comb through every legal action to reduce his tax rate. Every single person goes through their taxes to reduce the amount of money they owe, so why should Romney or any other rich person be vilified for doing that. The Obama campaign wants to make this election about Romney's success as a businessman instead of running on what Obama has done as president. They despise success and want to make sure it is vilified throughout the election.

Neato Missile wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Where is "predatory capitalism" ever even alluded to in the cancer ad? The guy is blaming Romney for firing him and killing his wife. The accusations are quite simple but the truth is far from what is shown in the ad.

"Predatory capitalism" is not mentioned in the ad, it's a term I cribbed from elsewhere regarding Romney's perceived corporate strategy of buying companies, "eating" them, and moving on. It wasn't meant insultingly, though I see that it's a somewhat loaded term.

That said, at no point in the ad does Soptic blame Romney for killing his wife. The point of the whole ad is that when Bain Capital closed down factories, real people suffered. It's more affecting than reams of statistics or graphs representing thousands of fired humans, and it should in no way be interpreted as an accusation of personal wrongdoing on Romney's part.

Except that even the factory closing didn't cause the real suffering in this case. The woman died of cancer 5 years after the factor had closed, and she had a job with insurance for at least one year after the factory closed. So why is he blaming the death on Bain Capital when, using his completely flawed logic, he should be blaming the woman's former employer.

Night Strike wrote:The whole point of wanting to see all of Romney's tax returns is so they can comb through every legal action to reduce his tax rate. Every single person goes through their taxes to reduce the amount of money they owe, so why should Romney or any other rich person be vilified for doing that. The Obama campaign wants to make this election about Romney's success as a businessman instead of running on what Obama has done as president. They despise success and want to make sure it is vilified throughout the election.

What makes you think all of his taxes are legal?

Moreover, running for President, Romney's problem is not so much whether it's legal or illegal, but whether it was moral.

Tax avoidance schemes and loopholes may be nice for the super-rich, and even legal, but they don't play well when you're proposing a tax increase on most folks and a tax cut on Romney-likes who already dodge taxes.

He should release them no? Or have you become so partisan that you make this exception only for people who run against Obama?

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Given that most of what our government spends its money on is at best waste and in most cases immoral - it would be immoral to pay more taxes than you are legally obligated to. It is immoral to advocate higher taxes. If Romney paid only 14% the question isn't how do we get him to pay a higher percentage - its how do we limit everyone to that percentage at most? Any taxation beyond a minimal amount is just state sanctioned theft.

The fact that the IRS has not charged him with a crime in the last decade (as Harry Reid claims he has committed).

Symmetry wrote:Moreover, running for President, Romney's problem is not so much whether it's legal or illegal, but whether it was moral.

I thought all you liberals hated morality being involved in the government. Or is it only Christian morality that you despise?

Besides, why isn't it moral to take the legal deductions that are written into the tax code and available to every single person in the country? If you think those deductions are "immoral", remove them from the tax code. But until then, of course it's moral to take them.

Symmetry wrote:Tax avoidance schemes and loopholes may be nice for the super-rich, and even legal, but they don't play well when you're proposing a tax increase on most folks and a tax cut on Romney-likes who already dodge taxes.

Except he's not planning on raising taxes on anybody. Obama and his democrats are more than eager to have a ton of massive taxes bear down on every single person when January 1st comes around though.

Symmetry wrote:He should release them no? Or have you become so partisan that you make this exception only for people who run against Obama?

I think they should have already been released, but at this point, they probably shouldn't be released. The only reason Obama wants them released is so they can run and hide from their completely failed policies and actions. Besides, we've already been taught by Obama that presidential politicians don't have to release anything about their past and will get a free pass on it from the lapdog media.

rockfist wrote:Given that most of what our government spends its money on is at best waste and in most cases immoral - it would be immoral to pay more taxes than you are legally obligated to. It is immoral to advocate higher taxes. If Romney paid only 14% the question isn't how do we get him to pay a higher percentage - its how do we limit everyone to that percentage at most? Any taxation beyond a minimal amount is just state sanctioned theft.

I'm not sure I give your given on this one- looks like you're starting out from an ideological premise and ending up at your ideal outcome, then fitting in logical steps, which are kind of a stretch, to fit.

Night Strike wrote:The whole point of wanting to see all of Romney's tax returns is so they can comb through every legal action to reduce his tax rate. Every single person goes through their taxes to reduce the amount of money they owe, so why should Romney or any other rich person be vilified for doing that.

Everyone takes legal actions to reduce their tax rates, and it's completely reasonable for Romney to do the same. However, many tax loopholes and rate-reducing tools are exclusively available to the wealthy, making it possible-- even likely-- for high earners to pay less than low earners.

Night Strike wrote:The Obama campaign wants to make this election about Romney's success as a businessman instead of running on what Obama has done as president. They despise success and want to make sure it is vilified throughout the election.

It would be foolish for the Obama campaign to focus on Romney's success. What they are doing is showing that the current environment is structured to make it easier for already-wealthy individuals (or, as in Romney's case, members of an already-wealthy family) to increase their fortunes than individuals who have not yet achieved wealth. Claiming that the Obama campaign despises success is an unhelpfully emotional representation of the situation, and only has a passing resemblance to the truth. They despise the bottleneck of success that exists at present, and hope to expand the opportunity to become successful to a greater part of the populace.

Symmetry wrote:Moreover, running for President, Romney's problem is not so much whether it's legal or illegal, but whether it was moral.

I thought all you liberals hated morality being involved in the government. Or is it only Christian morality that you despise?

This really doesn't make any sense at all, Night Strike. The very fact of BEING for a government is moral in some respect. It is religious-based morality, rather than human morality, that is the problem.

Night Strike wrote:Besides, why isn't it moral to take the legal deductions that are written into the tax code and available to every single person in the country? If you think those deductions are "immoral", remove them from the tax code. But until then, of course it's moral to take them.

I agree with this. I have no problem with Romney taking any tax deductions available to him.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:He should release them no? Or have you become so partisan that you make this exception only for people who run against Obama?

I think they should have already been released, but at this point, they probably shouldn't be released. The only reason Obama wants them released is so they can run and hide from their completely failed policies and actions. Besides, we've already been taught by Obama that presidential politicians don't have to release anything about their past and will get a free pass on it from the lapdog media.

If Obama is successful in "running and hiding from their completely failed policies and actions", then there is nobody to blame but Romney himself. You act as if Romney has no control at all in the direction that his campaign takes. If Obama's policies are the problem, then he should talk about nothing else but specifically what is wrong and specifically how he'll fix it. But he's not, really.

...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.

The fact that the IRS has not charged him with a crime in the last decade (as Harry Reid claims he has committed).

Symmetry wrote:Moreover, running for President, Romney's problem is not so much whether it's legal or illegal, but whether it was moral.

I thought all you liberals hated morality being involved in the government. Or is it only Christian morality that you despise?

Besides, why isn't it moral to take the legal deductions that are written into the tax code and available to every single person in the country? If you think those deductions are "immoral", remove them from the tax code. But until then, of course it's moral to take them.

Symmetry wrote:Tax avoidance schemes and loopholes may be nice for the super-rich, and even legal, but they don't play well when you're proposing a tax increase on most folks and a tax cut on Romney-likes who already dodge taxes.

Except he's not planning on raising taxes on anybody. Obama and his democrats are more than eager to have a ton of massive taxes bear down on every single person when January 1st comes around though.

Symmetry wrote:He should release them no? Or have you become so partisan that you make this exception only for people who run against Obama?

I think they should have already been released, but at this point, they probably shouldn't be released. The only reason Obama wants them released is so they can run and hide from their completely failed policies and actions. Besides, we've already been taught by Obama that presidential politicians don't have to release anything about their past and will get a free pass on it from the lapdog media.

A deeply sad post, you've seen the evidence that Romney will raise taxes, and is lying about it. Too many posters have ended your contributions in other threads by pointing it out for you to not have acknowledged it.

You don't think he should be open because he might be criticised?

What a limp Willy you're putting forward into the arena. Willard can't say what he's done because he might be criticised?

How impotent is he going to be when it comes to dealing with China, or another decade of Putin?

Welcome to America's decline- a candidate too afraid to tell the American public what he paid in taxes.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Woodruff wrote:If Obama is successful in "running and hiding from their completely failed policies and actions", then there is nobody to blame but Romney himself. You act as if Romney has no control at all in the direction that his campaign takes. If Obama's policies are the problem, then he should talk about nothing else but specifically what is wrong and specifically how he'll fix it. But he's not, really.

Which is really why he has been failing as a viable alternative thus far. However, choosing Paul Ryan as his VP candidate should drastically change that as it provides a person who has actually put forth budget proposals and done actual work to improve on the problems of governmental spending. Paul Ryan has not been perfect on taking a conservative stance on every single fiscal issue, but he has done actual work in Congress on addressing spending problems when no one else has even attempted to do so. Romney needs to focus on the failures by Obama on the economy while Ryan needs to focus on the failures of all of Washington when it comes to fiscal policies. Doing that will win them the election.